"It is one thing to have a public database available that lets me look up whether the neighbor I am feuding with might have a gun permit," Carr argues. "It is quite another to publish the names and addresses of all my neighbors who own guns. The decision lacked a rationale."

Carr argues that true journalism provides context, not just data: "Our job as journalists is to draw attention, to point at things, and what we choose to highlight is defined as news," he writes. "And then it is our job to create context, talk to sources who bring insight and provide analysis. Given that, simply pointing out that something is public as the sole reason for republishing it is not a sufficient justification."

That's true, but it's worth noting that context also exists off-page, especially when it comes to a story like Newtown. This data wasn't published in a vacuum.

In the highly charged debate over guns that followed the shooting, the extent of ownership was highly relevant. The shooting, known to anyone in this country not living under a rock, was the context. By publishing the "gun map," the Journal News gave readers a visceral understanding of the presence of guns in their own community.

Now, the Journal News could just as easily have published a line in a story with the per capita number of guns in the area, sparing the names and addresses of the owners and thus avoiding controversy. But ask any editor, advertiser, artist or curator -- hell, ask anyone whose ever made a Power Point presentation -- which editorial approach would be a more effective means of getting the point across.

This isn't an endorsement of the Journal News's decision. Carr might be right -- even Michael Bloomberg, the most anti-gun mayor in America isn't quite sure about the "gun map."

But I would be cautious about being too cautious. Caution is what makes yesterday's paper irrelevant.